Talk:Australian Better Families

Dispute over content

There is currently an edit war over the content of the page over whether; A) the party is linked to the Australian Brotherhood of Families and, B) the party can have men's rights labelled. The Australian Brotherhood of Families website has a registration page which states that to join the Brotherhood of Families you should join Australian Better Families stating "As a brotherhood we can no longer sit silently on the political sidelines to witness the betrayal of our children and families. We invite you to become our partner in reform as a member of the ABF party.". The website also has a link to the party on the top promoting ABF party membership. The founder of the party is also the leader of the Brotherhood of Families. This organisation has plenty of evidence of being labelled a men's rights group, and the party has policies such as promoting a minister for men. There hasn't been any attempt by the editor to try and dispute these claims, it smells like a public relations campaign. Catiline52 (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bradleys247: The contact details of the Brotherhood of Families and the Australian Better Families are the same. (https://betterfamilies.org.au/contact-us/ (In the footer)). The footer of Better Families also links to the Brotherhood of Families. I'm unsure what more evidence the editor wants. If the Brotherhood states that it is their political party, and there are several links between the two organisations websites, and there is the same contact information, how are the two organisations not linked? Catiline52 (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Ideology

The ideology remains incorrect. The ideology is not “Men’s rights” if anything closely resembled, it should be ‘children’s rights’.

Please note the ideology of the Party is as registered with the Australian Electoral Commission Australian Better Families, further the policies of the group reflect that of a ‘centre conservative’ party/group. Claude1980Meir (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I propose to remove the ideology and the political position from the infobox (as I have done a number of times before on this article). This is partly as that appears to be the centre of the edit war, partly as I'm not certain the sources universally support either of the versions of content. One of the cited sources is a post on the party's own Facebook page. The references could be used to write a paragraph about the ideals of the party, which do not sound exactly like what is described in the article on Men's rights movement. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Another revert since I posted that, so I have removed the fields. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The changes look good. Greyjoy ^talk 05:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I've tried to add back in Ideologies with a neutral perspective. The information has been taken from Australian Better Families website to avoid labelling the party as purely 'Men's Rights'. Rubypp (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)User:Rubypp

I think your version relies too heavily on primary sources and tends to whitewash the issues with the party, am going to be bold and revert while discussion takes place. Greyjoy ^talk 13:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I am still working on it, I plan to add more information to the 'Links to Other Groups' section and include some of the controversy around the party and its traditional values. I could include a section on the opposition to the Men's Right movement in general and the issues with the ideology. I was just unsure whether this would be seen as bringing in personal values as the groups has not officially claimed to be pro-Men's Rights, only the organisation Australian Better Families has. Rubypp (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)≠User:Rubypp

Since the article doesn't refer to the party as pro-men's rights I don't think that is necessary. It's only mentioned in relation to Erikson. My primary concern was the lack of reliable third party references. Greyjoy ^talk 07:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I attempted to include some third party sources in History and Links to other Groups but have struggled to find relevant sources that are not simply dissecting the pro-men's rights movement. I think we agree that including more on that movement would only cause issues on this page. Do you have any suggestions for how I could incorporate more sources e.g. any new sections to add to this page that would be suitable? Rubypp (talk) 09:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)User:Rubypp

Unfortunately there has not been a large amount of coverage in reliable sources for ABF, just looks like a spike during elections (not a shock there). Until there is more coverage I can't really come up with much to expand the article, however if you find something don't hesitate to suggest/make changes. It's good to be bold and if there are any issues someone will spot it and try to help out. Greyjoy ^talk 10:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Would posting any of my earlier material be appropriate for the page? I can make changes to it if that is necessary or contribute new sections. I understand the issue of independence when citing the Party's own website for information, but I do think that it is acceptable to reference them when explaining their own beliefs and social media movements. Also, the ABC news stories linking the party and One Nation seemed relevant. Rubypp (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC) Rubypp

At a glance I don't think there would be a problem with the other references, I would steer clear from ABF references but other's may disagree. Greyjoy ^talk 02:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help. I'll try to incorporate more sources and exclude the ABF options. This has been a lot of help. THANK YOU Rubypp (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC) Rubypp